CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 204Environmental Philosophy and EthicsEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesHydrology and Sediment Transport Processes

The intervention continuum in restoration ecology: rethinking the active–passive dichotomy

Open access
Chazdon, Robin L., Falk, Donald A., Banin, Lindsay F., Wagner, Markus, J. Wilson, Sarah, Grabowski, Robert C., Suding, Katherine N.·2024·Restoration Ecology
DOI 10.1111/rec.13535
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The distinction often made between active and passive restoration approaches is a false dichotomy that persists in much research, policy, and financial structures today. We explore the contradictions imposed by this terminology and the merits of replacing this dichotomy with a continuum‐based intervention framework. In practice, the main distinction between “passive” and “active” restoration lies primarily in the timing and extent of human interventions. We apply the intervention continuum framework to forest, grassland, stream, and peatland ecosystems, emphasizing that a range of restoration approaches within the scope of ecological or ecosystem restoration are typically employed in most projects, and all can contribute to the recovery of native ecosystems and prevention of further degradation. As restoration is fundamentally about the recovery of ecosystems, eliminating human sources of degradation is essential to enable ecosystem recovery processes, regardless of subsequent interventions that may be needed to assist recovery. Our review of restoration practices involving different levels of intervention highlights the benefits of recognizing a broader suite of restoration interventions in the financial and policy frameworks that currently underpin restoration activity. Effective restoration interventions emerge from an understanding of nature's intrinsic recovery potential and overcoming specific obstacles that limit this potential.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/rec.13535

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The synthesis refutes the implicit assumption of ecosystem service-oriented forest restoration initiatives that tree plantations can deliver ecosystem services as effectively as native forests.

    “Our synthesis refutes the implicit assumptions of ecosystem service-oriented forest restoration initiatives such as China's Grain-for-Green Program covering >34 million hectares (37,38), and a large collection of projects targeting carbon storage (39), soil conservation (40), and water provisioning (41) that have focused mostly on establishing (monoculture) tree plantations.”

    From The biodiversity and ecosystem service contributions and trade-offs of forest restoration approaches (2022) · cites this paper as [37]

    The Forest ecosystems section discusses natural regeneration, tree planting, and ecosystem services such as soil fertility and water quality, but it does not compare the services delivered by plantations and native forests. Searches for monoculture plantations, water provisioning, and Grain-for-Green found no passage addressing the claimed assumption or its refutation; the available passages have no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 46

  1. Abatzoglou, J. T., and A. P. Williams. 2016. Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113:11770- 11775.
  2. Binkley D. 2020. Forest ecology: An evidence-based approach. Wiley-Blackwell Publishers.
  3. Brazier RE, Puttock A, Graham HA, Auster RE, Davies KH, Brown CML (2021) Beaver: Nature's ecosystem engineers. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Water 8:1-29. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1494 · DOI
  4. Chazdon, R. L. 2014. Second growth: The promise of tropical forest regeneration in an age of deforestation. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
  5. Chazdon, R. L., D. Lindenmayer, M. R. Guariguata, R. Crouzeilles, J. M. Rey Benayas, and E. Lazos. 2020. Fostering natural forest regeneration on former agricultural land through economic and policy interventions. Environmental Research Letters 15:043002; https://iopscience.iop.org/article/043010.041088/041748-049326/ab043079e043006/pdf. · DOI
  6. Clewell, A. F., and J. Aronson. 2013. Ecological restoration. Principles, values, and structure of an emerging profession, 2nd Edition. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
  7. Crouzeilles, R., H. L. Beyer, L. M. Monteiro, R. Feltran-Barbieri, A. C. Pessôa, F. S. Barros, D. B. Lindenmayer, E. D. Lino, C. E. Grelle, and R. L. Chazdon. 2020. Achieving cost- effective landscape-scale forest restoration through targeted natural regeneration. Conservation Letters:e12709.
  8. Damasceno G, Fidelis A (2020) Abundance of invasive grasses is dependent on fire regime and climatic conditions in tropical savannas. Journal of environmental Management 271, 111016.
  9. Dewar JJ, DA Falk, TW Swetnam, CH Baisan, CD Allen, and RR Parmenter. 2021. Landscape reconstruction of historical fire regimes of forest-grassland ecotones and grasslands in the Valles Caldera National Preserve, New Mexico, USA. Landscape Ecology 36: 331-352. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10980-020-01101-w. · DOI
  10. Doyle, Mary, and Cynthia Drew, eds. Large-scale ecosystem restoration: five case studies from the United States. Island Press, 2012.
  11. Eschen R, Mortimer SR, Lawson CS, Edwards AR, Brook AJ, Igual JM, et al. (2006) Carbon addition alters vegetation composition on ex-arabe fields. Journal of Applied Ecology 44:95-104.
  12. European Community, 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of October 23 2000 of the European parliament and of the council establishing a framework for community action in the field of water policy. Official Journal of the European Community, L327, 1-72.
  13. Fagan KC, Pywell RF, Bullock JM, Marrs RH (2008) Do restored calcareous grasslands on former arable fields resemble ancient targets? The effect of time, methods and environment on outcomes. Journal of Applied Ecology 45:1293-1303.
  14. Falk DA 2006. Process-centred restoration in a fire-adapted ponderosa pine forest. Journal for Nature Conservation 14: 140-151.
  15. Falk, D. A. 2017. Restoration ecology, resilience, and the axes of change. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 102:201-216.
  16. Festin, E. S., M. Tigabu, M. N. Chileshe, S. Syampungani, and P. C. Odén. 2019. Progresses in restoration of post-mining landscape in Africa. Journal of forestry research 30:381-396.
  17. Grabowski R, Gurnell A, Burgess-Gamble L, England J, Holland D, Klaar M, Morrissey I, Uttley C & Wharton G (2019) The current state of the use of large wood in river restoration and management. Water and Environ Journal 33:wej.12465. https://doi.org/10.1111/wej.12465. · DOI
  18. Grabowski RC, Gurnell AM (2016) Diagnosing problems of fine sediment delivery and transfer in a lowland catchment. Aquatic Sciences 78:95-106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027- 015-0426-3. · DOI
  19. Graham, LLB, Giesen, W, Page S (2017) A common-sense approach to tropical peat swamp forest restoration in South Eastasia. Restoration Ecology 25 (2): 312-321.
  20. Halassy M, Kövendi-Jakó A, Szitár K, Török K (2020) N immobilization treatment revisited: a retarded and temporary effect unfolded in old field restoration. Applied Vegetation Science. (In Press). https://doi.org/10.1111/avsc.12555 · DOI
  21. Jaehnig SC, Brabec K, Buffagni A, Erba S, Lorenz AW, Ofenboeck T, Verdonschot PFM, Hering D (2010) A comparative analysis of restoration measures and their effects on hydromorphology and benthic invertebrates in 26 central and southern European rivers. Journal of Applied Ecology 47:671-680. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 2664.2010.01807.x · DOI
  22. Joosten H, Tapio-Biström M-L & Tol S (2012) Peatlands -guidance for climate change mitigation through conservation, rehabilitation and sustainable use (Second edition). Mitigation of Climate Change in Agriculture (MICCA) Programme. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Wetlands International. http://www.fao.org/3/an762e/an762e00.htm
  23. Kaul AD and Wilsey BJ (2021) Exotic species drive patterns of plant species diversity in 93 restored tallgrass prairies. Ecological Applications 31: e2252; https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.2252 · DOI
  24. Kitzberger T, DA Falk, AL Westerling, and TW Swetnam. 2017. Direct and indirect climate controls predict heterogeneous early-mid 21st century wildfire burned area across western and boreal North America. PLoS One 12(12): e0188486. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188486 · DOI
  25. Koziol L, Bever JD (2017) The missing link in grassland restoration: arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi inoculation increases plant diversity and accelerates succession. Journal of Applied Ecology 54:13-1-1309.
  26. Ladouceur E, Jiménez-Alfaro B, Marin M, De Vitis M, Abbandonato H, Iannetta PPM, et a. (2018) Native seed supply and the restoration species pool. Conservation Letters 11:e12381
  27. Manchester SJ, McNally Sm Treweek JR, Sparks TH, Mountford JO (1999) The cost and practicality of techniques for the reversion of arable land to lowland wet grassland -an experimental study and review. Journal of Environmental Management 55:91-109.
  28. Messier, C., K. Puettmann, R. Chazdon, K. Andersson, V. Angers, L. Brotons, E. Filotas, R. Tittler, L. Parrott, and S. Levin. 2015. From management to stewardship: viewing forests as complex adaptive systems in an uncertain world. Conservation Letters 8:368-377.
  29. Miceli-Méndez, C. L., B. G. Ferguson, and N. Ramírez-Marcial. 2008. Seed dispersal by cattle: Natural history and applications to Neotropical forest restoration and agroforestry. Pages 165-191 in R. W. Myster, editor. Post-Agricultural succession in the Neotropics. Springer, New York.
  30. Oomes MJM (1990) Changes in dry matter and nutrient yields during the restoration of species- rich grasslands. Journal of Vegetation Science 1:333-338.
  31. Öster M, Ask K, Cousins SAO, Eriksson O (2009) Dispersal and establishment limitation reduces the potential for successful restoration of semi-natural grassland communities on former arable fields. Journal of Applied Ecology 46:1266-1274.
  32. Palmer M, Ruhi A (2019) Linkages between flow regime, biota, and ecosystem processes: Implications for river restoration. Science 365 (6459), eaaw2087. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw2087 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Parish, F., Sirin, A., Charman, D., Joosten, H., Minayeva, T., Silvius, M. and Stringer, L. (Eds.) 2008. Assessment on Peatlands, Biodiversity and Climate Change: Main Report. Global Environment Centre, Kuala Lumpur and Wetlands International, Wageningen.
  34. Prach K, Török P, Bakker JD (2017) Temperate grasslands. Pages 126-141. In: Allison SK, Murphy SD (eds) Routledge handbook of ecological and environmental restoration. Routledge, London, United Kingdom.
  35. JN, Schultz NL, Hodges JA, Cleland MA, Morgan JW (2020) Land-use legacies limit the effectiveness of switches in disturbance type to restore endangered grasslands. Restoration Ecology. (In Press). https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13271 · DOI
  36. Pywell RF, Bullock JM, Roy DB, Warman L, Walker KJ, Rothery P (2003) Plant traits as predictors of performance in ecological restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology 40:65-77.
  37. Standards Reference Group, SERA (2021) National Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration in Australia. Edition 2.2. Society for Ecological Restoration Australasia. Available from URL: www.seraustralasia.com
  38. Stevens-Rumann, C. S., and P. Morgan. 2019. Tree regeneration following wildfires in the western US: a review. Fire Ecology 15:15.
  39. Tĕšitel J, Mládek J, Horník J, Tĕšitelová T, Adamec V, Tichý L (2017) Suppressing competitive dominants and community restoration with native parasitic plants using the hemiparasitic Rhinanthus alectorolophus and the dominant grass Calamagrostis epigejos. Journal of Applied Ecology 54:1487-1495.
  40. Tuck, S. L., M. J. O'Brien, C. D. Philipson, P. Saner, M. Tanadini, D. Dzulkifli, H. C. J. Godfray, E. Godoong, R. Nilus, and R. C. Ong. 2016. The value of biodiversity for the functioning of tropical forests: insurance effects during the first decade of the Sabah biodiversity experiment. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 283:20161451.
  41. van Eijk P, Leenman P, Wibisono ITC, Giesen W (2009) Regeneration and restoration of degraded peat swamp forest in Berbak National Park, Jambi, Sumatra, Indonesia. Malayan Nature Journal 61:223-241.
  42. Vietz GJ, Walsh CJ, Fletcher TD (2016) Urban hydrogeomorphology and the urban stream syndrome. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment 40:480-492. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309133315605048 · DOI
  43. Waldén E, Lindborg R (2018) Facing the future for grassland restoration -What about the farmers? Journal of Environmental Management 227:305-312.
  44. Weidlich EWA, Flórido FG, Sorrini TB, Brancalion PHS (2020) Controlling invasive plant species in ecological restoration: a global review. Journal of Applied Ecology 57:1806- 1817.
  45. Westbury DB, Davies A, Woodcock BA, Dunnett NP (2006) Seeds of change: the value of using Rhinanthus minor in grassland restoration. Journal of Vegetation Science 17:435-446.
  46. Wösten, J. H. M., Van Den Berg, J, Van Eijk, P, Gevers, G. J. M., Giesen, W. B. J. T., Hooijer, A., Aswandi Idris, Leenman, P. H., Dipa Satriadi Rais, Siderius, C., Silvius, M. J., Suryadiputra, N. & Iwan Tricahyo Wibisono (2006) Interrelationships between Hydrology and Ecology in Fire Degraded Tropical Peat Swamp Forests. International Journal of Water Resources Development 22: 157-174.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chazdon, R. L., Falk, D. A., Banin, L. F., Wagner, M., J. Wilson, S., Grabowski, R. C., & Suding, K. N.
Affiliations
  • University of the Sunshine Coast (AU)
  • University of Arizona (US)
  • UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (GB)
  • School of Environment University of Victoria Canada
  • Cranfield University (GB)
  • Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research University of Colorado Boulder Boulder CO 80309‐0450 U.S.A.
Corresponding author
Chazdon, Robin L.
ORCID
Venue
Restoration Ecology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-09-12
Volume
32
Issue
8
ISSN
  • 1061-2971 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-100X
DOI
10.1111/rec.13535
OpenAlex
W3194123190
Cited by
204
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 62 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 22
FWCI
14.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Restoration Ecology (publishedVersion)
  • NERC Open Research Archive (Natural Environment Research Council) (acceptedVersion)
  • CERES (Cranfield University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • Royal Society
  • U.S. Geological Survey
  • Southwest Climate Adaptation Science Center
  • Natural Environment Research Council (NE/T005092/1, NE/S01232X/1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Environmental Philosophy and Ethics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Hydrology and Sediment Transport Processes
Keywords
active restoration, passive restoration, restoration interventions, ecosystem recovery, forest restoration, grassland restoration, stream restoration, peatland restoration, restoration policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review